Money post revolution

[ContrarianLemming]

Money after a revolution? (the state is gone)
what of it?

im not a communist, i don't believe in a gift economy, i don't see it as efficiant as a money/sallary based economy (ie: anarcho-collectivism)
i think we should receive a sallary based on how long we work, how hard it was, training need and the dangers, basically Parecon

the different between collectivism/syndicalism and communism is really over the question of money as far as i know

i have accepted the idea that money should stay, but im not actually sure why. so i basically wanna "test my faith" and ask anarcho communists: why is a gift economy better? why should we all be allowed take goods as we wish when we don't necessarily deserve them? wat of luxery goods? (i know theres a thread on that atm, i'm still reading it)

[Kommrad Stalen]

Of course a social economy would be better because its for the people.

[AK]

Money has essentially been the basis of capitalism for it's entire existence and the systems before it. It has been used to alienate the lower classes from the fruits of their labour since it's creation. Money represents exchange value and under a communist (stateless, classless, moneyless society) system (where everyone gets fair wages - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"), the necessity for a monetary system would be entirely non-existent. Exchange value can be simply defined as how much something is worth in relation to the product or service you want. But put simply, if everyone gets what they deserve for for their labour, then the economy works in perfect equillibrium and people take only what they need from shops, etc. because that shop is getting stocked by the factories that that worker may work in.

[ZeroNowhere]

Tch, as if the only alternative to a social system dominated by commodity production, which is a euphemistic way to say 'capitalism', is a gift economy. Anarcho-collectivists generally believe in labour-credits which do not circulate rather than money, as far as I am aware, the people who support capitalism are generally called individualists or Proudhonists.


where everyone gets fair wages - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"Which is not quite as bad as wage labour popping up under communism somehow.

[los.barbaros.ganan]

Money after a revolution? (the state is gone)
what of it?

im not a communist, i don't believe in a gift economy, i don't see it as efficiant as a money/sallary based economy (ie: anarcho-collectivism)
i think we should receive a sallary based on how long we work, how hard it was, training need and the dangers, basically Parecon

the different between collectivism/syndicalism and communism is really over the question of money as far as i know

i have accepted the idea that money should stay, but im not actually sure why. so i basically wanna "test my faith" and ask anarcho communists: why is a gift economy better? why should we all be allowed take goods as we wish when we don't necessarily deserve them? wat of luxery goods? (i know theres a thread on that atm, i'm still reading it)

No money means you don't need the huge financial adminstrations like banks, insurance etc, meaning a huge increase in available hands to help out more important tasks.
I think with the current technical capabilities and the dismantling of unnessecery jobs everyone have to work only a tiny portion of what they have to work today. Although this means a lot more doctors and teachers and such, for everone has the choice to work only the minium amount of work.


No money means no finacial related worries


no money means no dependency of labourcosts, so labour can be divided at its most efficient and logic


The best motivation is need, and not money that's a way to satisfy the need in a market-based economy

No people in debt


No financial-related crimes


Huge decrease in corruption


No money means no way to develop a new elite (also no governement)


etc

[danyboy27]

Of course a social economy would be better because its for the people.

fuck the economy, ressources management ftw.

[Spencer]

why should we all be allowed take goods as we wish when we don't necessarily deserve them? wat of luxery goods?

No offence, but it seems to me that this kind of attitude is more concerned with forcing people to accept your idea of what constitutes useful labour or whatever than anything else. So long as we have the productive capacity, and a large enough majority of people are prepared to use it, for a socialist society, it really couldn't bother me less if some people were taking a free ride. Especially when we consider that policing work done and excluding those who fail to do enough completely defeats the point of free access, in fact, the two are mutually exclusive.

Actually, this is why it always confuses me when people see totalitarian bogeymen in the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, when every other proposal for an alternative form of economic and social organisation that I can think of does in fact make a judgement on how deserving you are of the products of the society of which you are part and, worst of all, does not necessarily take into account your needs when determining just how much you deserve.

Take the section “What about the person who will not work” in the anarchist FAQ. Despite the fact that they say “Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work then they cannot (must not) be forced to”, the very existence of this section, which provides suggestions on what do do with non-workers, contradicts this. And they do indeed go on to suggest several ways to 'encourage' people to work, and this involves making a judgement on whether or not they are deserving of what society produces, and then denying people what they need. They must deny people's needs, else such coercive measures would not work.

Sure, they aren't going to starve anyone to death, but socialism isn't just about stopping people from starving to death or dying of preventable diseases, it's about creating, for ourselves, lives, and a society, which are fit for human consumption. From one point of view I might not need free range chicken or 2-ply toilet paper in order to ensure my survival (I might not NEED it), but I don't think it would be too controversial to say that most people think/would think that eating shit food and wiping your arse with sandpaper is beneath the dignity of any human being (that is, if they don't think it now, by the time the majority were socialists they certainly would). So I need them because they are a necessary part of a worthwhile and enjoyable existence.

Of course as human beings our needs extend beyond mere food and drink. In “What Socialists Want”, William Morris puts it rather nicely:


But these things, food, clothes, and shelter, but these are our needs as animals only; as men and women we have other needs: however much we may vary we all of us need leisure and amusement and education of some sort or other for all men have the power of thinking, and that power may be repressed and may be developed, just as a plant may be starved or made fruitful by the quality of the soil it is planted in and cultivation it has. Again then I say that if a person has not leisure, pleasure, and education they fall short of human necessaries and there is something wrong somewhere.

So you see whatever inequality I admit among people, I claim this equality that everybody should have full enough food, clothes, and housing, and full enough leisure, pleasure, and education; and that everybody should have a certainty of these necessaries: in this case we should be equal as Socialists use the work: if we are not so equal, I assert that something is wrong either with nature, the individual man or the Society which tells him how to live.


Not an anarchist but I don't really like the term 'gift economy' since it implies that the products of society do not belong equally to everyone in that society.

[syndicat]

i don't see it as efficiant as a money/sallary based economy (ie: anarcho-collectivism) i think we should receive a sallary based on how long we work, how hard it was, training need and the dangers, basically Parecon


Participatory planning isn't the same thing as 19th century "collectivism", I think. Collectivism sort of assumed a kind of market economy where labor-time is the measure of value, based on the old Labor Theory of Value.

This differs from participatory economics because participatory planning occurs in an economy where everyone owns the whole economic system, there isn't collective ownership of means of production by "collectives." Also, in parecon prices are not based on work effort (duration, harshness of work etc) but on supply and demand, as measured not thru a market but through the decentralized planning system.

Prices based on work effort would lead to inefficiency because it would underprice forms of work that presuppose skills that are very expensive for the society to produce.

I would agree we do need to have a price system to ensure efficient allocation of resources to produce things people most prefer to have produced.

"To each according to need" is a vague slogan. Who decides what someone "needs"? If they do, then it's really "To each according to what they desire". And that is not a very useful slogan since everyone can't have everything they might desire. If "needs" refers to the things that people regard as the highest priorities, then any planning system that can refect people's priorities, and NOT incomes that derive from power in the economy (which is what happens in class society) will tend to lead to "to each according to need."

[Lyev]

Does anyone actually know of any concise, detailed Marxist works that say what a post-capitalist, moneyless society would look like? Or any works detailing how a gift economy would work? I think out of all my theoretical knowledge, I know least about what the end goal looks like. It seems very blurry; Marx only really spent his life time critiquing capitalism, rather than writing about revolutionary theory or what a post capitalist society would look like, as far as I know. It has always seemed the most radical out of all socialists/radical leftists demands. I can certainly understand the basic rationale behind it, but the deeper rationale is foggy for me, and probably with a fair few other leftists. Did Marx actually write, at all, about abolition of money? Why abolition of money? Why not just re-distribute money, equally? (I'm theoretically for abolition of money unless persuaded otherwise, I'm just trying to play devils advocate). Is it perhaps something to do with commodity fetishism, or the alienation of use-value? Thanks.

[ZeroNowhere]

It is perhaps something to do with the fact that money is tied up with production of value. Re-distributing money would leave capitalism intact, thus continuing alienation, crises and other fun stuff. In the current, global economy, it would probably also be economic suicide as well.


It seems very blurry; Marx only really spent his life time critiquing capitalism, rather than writing about revolutionary theory or what a post capitalist society would look like, as far as I know.He gave enough detail on that in the first chapter of Capital, the Critique of the Gotha Program, etc.

[ckaihatsu]

Tch, as if the only alternative to a social system dominated by commodity production, which is a euphemistic way to say 'capitalism', is a gift economy.





i have accepted the idea that money should stay, but im not actually sure why. so i basically wanna "test my faith" and ask anarcho communists: why is a gift economy better? why should we all be allowed take goods as we wish when we don't necessarily deserve them? wat of luxery goods? (i know theres a thread on that atm, i'm still reading it)


The concept of a gift economy is very useful in *spirit*, but by name alone it's rather vague because it doesn't suggest anything about the *productive* process that would be the *source* of the gifts.

Certainly as a method of *distribution* it's better -- more enlightened and fluid -- than a money- and commodity-market-based one like capitalism.




For very close-knit people -- couples or communities -- the gift economy is easier and more fluid than to bother commodifying anything. Once in the "inner circle" things just happen because there's enough stability, activity, and economic support of it to keep things flowing. Would the husband have taken the wife to the movies *anyway*, without any material reciprocity? Most likely so. Would the wife have cooked the husband his favorite dinner even if he had to abruptly cancel the evening at the movies for some legitimate reason? Probably so, too.

*Trade* exchanges are *business* since the relationship between parties is *determined* by the exchanges, not the other way around, as for *personal* relationships.


Some of the topics in this thread, like the prioritizing of consumer demand and the valuation of labor effort, have also just been discussed in another thread:


'Technocracy and Communism'

http://www.revleft.com/vb/technocracy-and-communism-t130829/index.html





No offence, but it seems to me that this kind of [who-deserves-goods] attitude is more concerned with forcing people to accept your idea of what constitutes useful labour or whatever than anything else. So long as we have the productive capacity, and a large enough majority of people are prepared to use it, for a socialist society, it really couldn't bother me less if some people were taking a free ride. Especially when we consider that policing work done and excluding those who fail to do enough completely defeats the point of free access, in fact, the two are mutually exclusive.


I agree here.





Take the section “What about the person who will not work” in the anarchist FAQ. Despite the fact that they say “Anarchism is based on voluntary labour. If people do not desire to work then they cannot (must not) be forced to”, the very existence of this section, which provides suggestions on what do do with non-workers, contradicts this. And they do indeed go on to suggest several ways to 'encourage' people to work, and this involves making a judgement on whether or not they are deserving of what society produces, and then denying people what they need. They must deny people's needs, else such coercive measures would not work.


This introduction of value judgments / 'deserved-ness' into the political economy and distribution of produced goods is *very* problematic. It really smacks of government and society in the *worst* sense of both terms.

I don't think it takes such a leap of faith to imagine that a post-capitalist society of abundance would see to satisfying people's most dire needs first, in the most informal and expedient ways available -- after that those who would be readily seen to be obviously contributing less and consuming more would just fall lower on the totem pole for better stuff in the future.





Actually, this is why it always confuses me when people see totalitarian bogeymen in the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, when every other proposal for an alternative form of economic and social organisation that I can think of does in fact make a judgement on how deserving you are of the products of the society of which you are part and, worst of all, does not necessarily take into account your needs when determining just how much you deserve.


I think it makes a *big* difference as to whether the critique of the _Communist Manifesto_ is coming from the right or from the left. If you think that there is no legitimate room left on the political spectrum *to the left* of the _CM_, I recently critiqued it for being *moralistic* by possibly *mandating* "from each according to his ability":








But because other people had to work to support you, framers to make the food, and doctor to do the operation, you should not be given a new xbox, for being in bed, and doing nothing. Under capitalism, you are reward, thought wage, with the right to live, thought food and health care, housing, and you are also give the reward of entertainment as well. So under my system the reason you work is not to live, but to be rewarded thought wages to be entertained. So you don’t have to work to eat, or get health care, but work, to get that new PS3 you have been eyeing.





Speaking for myself, *personally*, I find this approach -- along the lines of the _Communist Manifesto_'s "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" -- to be on the *moralistic* side of things.

I'm of the stance that there should be a *minimum* of value judgments made over a person's social identity (within a workers'-collective administration), over definitions of "deserving", "leisure", "responsibility", and so on.

I don't condone an invisible-hand "market" system whatsoever, either -- rather, the matching up of labor to human demand can be done politically / societally. There can be no question about the *capacity* of contemporary factory production to mechanically produce a *bounty* of the goods to fulfill basic living requirements *and* most of the more-leisurely pursuits that people may have, with a *minimum* of labor input. If better qualities of goods are desired then that would be a *political* issue to be publicized and fought for in the political arena of liberated labor.





"To each according to need" is a vague slogan. Who decides what someone "needs"? If they do, then it's really "To each according to what they desire". And that is not a very useful slogan since everyone can't have everything they might desire. If "needs" refers to the things that people regard as the highest priorities, then any planning system that can refect people's priorities, and NOT incomes that derive from power in the economy (which is what happens in class society) will tend to lead to "to each according to need."


I agree that a method of *prioritization* should be in place so as to make clear the gradient from 'needs' to 'desires' for each individual.





I would agree we do need to have a price system to ensure efficient allocation of resources to produce things people most prefer to have produced.





im not a communist, i don't believe in a gift economy, i don't see it as efficiant as a money/sallary based economy (ie: anarcho-collectivism)
i think we should receive a sallary based on how long we work, how hard it was, training need and the dangers, basically Parecon





Prices based on work effort would lead to inefficiency because it would underprice forms of work that presuppose skills that are very expensive for the society to produce.


I find this part to be confusing and even contradictory -- if prices aren't based on work effort, then what *are* they based on?

Do you advocate market socialism? If so then labor would have to be priced / quantified *anyway*, *and* the collectivized means of mass production itself would be under the constant threat of being re-commodified and privatized.

Also, the more expensive it is for society to produce certain skills in workers, the more expensive those workers' subsequent *skilled labor* would be. I don't see why you're contending that society would just *underprice* that skilled labor -- it's a spurious assertion.





[In] parecon prices are not based on work effort (duration, harshness of work etc) but on supply and demand, as measured not thru a market but through the decentralized planning system.


Wouldn't greater-skilled / better-quality labor *also* be more in demand? People would rather have *better* stuff, including (human-labor-based) services, rather than *worse* stuff. *Getting* more better-skilled labor means that those better-skilled workers would have to invest more of their own life-time in education, training, and practice, so as to build up their skill levels. *And* their respective labor would most likely require *more* work effort, drawing upon the time spent in preparation *and* being more attentive to more details and particulars.

*This* means that prices, whatever the name of inter-change you use, would reflect this constant trading off of preparation time for skill, and of skill for higher pricing.

I'm actually in agreement that these critical material qualities and quantities *can't* simply be ignored -- I've developed a post-capitalist economic model that reserves the *political* aspects for the larger society, through prioritization of needs and desires, and reserves the *economic* aspects for active, liberated labor alone, so as to keep it self-empowered:





With this [communist supply & demand] model the checks and balances would be built-in between the interests of labor for organizing strength (channels of labor credits flowing forward), and the interests of the population for skilled, experienced, readily available labor (large-group demands, concentrated and formalized through politically agreed-upon prioritizations of work projects, and paid for with difficulty-factored labor credits, by the hour).





Anarcho-collectivists generally believe in labour-credits which do not circulate rather than money


It's because of the inter-exchanges of time-for-skill, and of skill-for-compensation that I think we *do* need an economic system that allows labor credits to circulate. Whether the *communist administration* of these labor credits does the circulation automatically and transparently, or whether it's done person-to-person, as with cash today, I think it would only be a *trivial* difference. Either way labor credits would be accumulating in laborers' accounts or would be spent, and depleted -- regardless there would be an *exterior* circulation going on, one that would be entirely under a collectivized administration of regulation.

The *difference* between the *regular* conception of labor credits and my *own* conception of them is that in my model there is *no* exchange of labor credits for material goods and services. This is because the output of collectivized production is *supposed* to be *collectivized* itself, and distributed freely. Hence there would be *zero* requirements for any exchange mechanism between labor / labor credits and material goods and services.




Currently production requires [1] labor, and [2] capital, right? Without the abstracted, bullshit capital-market-pricing valuation at play we would have to have a *political economy* that *collectively, consciously* assumes mass control and planning over society's productive capacities, right?

But this *political* aspect doesn't speak to the *labor* component in a post-capitalist political economy -- sure no one could be blackmailed into work roles against their basic human living needs, but how would the potential, willing labor *supply* be treated by the *larger*, *overarching* political society -- the "demand" -- ?

This is where *past work completed*, quantified into labor credits, would confer a kind of *seniority* or *labor social status* in organizing the (numerically smaller) supply of labor to potentially meet the (numerically larger) population's requests ("demand") for production runs.


(You can refer to the original post of the quoted text for more details about the model.)





Exchange value can be simply defined as how much something is worth in relation to the product or service you want. But put simply, if everyone gets what they deserve for for their labour, then the economy works in perfect equillibrium and people take only what they need from shops, etc. because that shop is getting stocked by the factories that that worker may work in.


I haven't ever seen this proposal before, and it's intriguing. There *could* very well be a way to keep track of exactly *what kinds* of work inputs, and *how much* of each kind, went into the production of whatever is being consumed by someone -- something akin to energy accounting, but for labor.

While I normally eschew this kind of "genealogical" approach to energy / labor accounting, it's this particular method utilizing it that may make it worthwhile. You're saying that, once back-tracked and accurately quantified, the respective types and amounts of labor that went into the production of what someone consumes could actually be *reported* to them, and they would then have to report in to "pay back" that very same amount and types of labor by putting in the work themselves -- ??? Interesting!


Chris




--
--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
tinypic.com/ckaihatsu

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Epitomizing generalities --

[Crusade]

i have accepted the idea that money should stay, but im not actually sure why. so i basically wanna "test my faith" and ask anarcho communists: why is a gift economy better? why should we all be allowed take goods as we wish when we don't necessarily deserve them? wat of luxery goods? (i know theres a thread on that atm, i'm still reading it)

I support currency, but in the form of the "labor credits" concept. Any form of currency that can only be used once and only by the one who earned it.(like a movie ticket) But I do believe that currency will always lead to more efficiency over "to each according to his need". The line between "need" and "want" is damn near invisible for most people. Also, I do believe as our society progresses, there will be steady increases in production of things we don't actually "need", just want. As with any productive society, or even productive individuals, you become more secure and comfortable with the system.

I believe in "earning" what you have. And if there's collective ownership of the means of production, the labor theory of value can work its magic.(EDIT: I should specify that I do not believe the "price" of something should be determined only by how long it took to make it, I'm specifically referring to you being paid for how long you work and how productive you are) Not only is this efficient, but it will lead to more production, humane work hours, and worker solidarity instead of bloodthirsty competition. You'll be HAPPY your fellow man is succeeding since you know you won't somehow lose anything because of it. Plus, as a libertarian, I'll be damned if I have to sit through someone else deciding what I or anyone else "needs". :rolleyes:

We can collectively decide what gets produced, but I'm the one who decides how much of it I'm willing to EARN by WORKING.

[Tablo]

Money is a feature of the market system and is entirely against the Communist ideology. We want an end of wage slavery and that entails an end to currency as well.

[4N4RCHY]

Nice troll thread.

[Crusade]

Nice troll thread.

?

[4N4RCHY]

?

Let me explain. The goal of this thread was to provoke those who strongly believe in a gift economy (which is many people in RevLeft), and get them into an argument with those who strongly believe in a cash economy (such as socialists). The inevitable debate would soon degenerate into a flame war, which means "successful troll is successful".

[Tablo]

Let me explain. The goal of this thread was to provoke those who strongly believe in a gift economy (which is many people in RevLeft), and get them into an argument with those who strongly believe in a cash economy (such as socialists). The inevitable debate would soon degenerate into a flame war, which means "successful troll is successful".
How is a gift economy in opposition to a Socialist economy? Socialism simply entails democratic control of the the means of production. A gift-economy compliments the concept of a democratic economy. While not all socialist economies are are necessarily Communist it does not mean that the gift system is undemocratic.

[4N4RCHY]

How is a gift economy in opposition to a Socialist economy? Socialism simply entails democratic control of the the means of production. A gift-economy compliments the concept of a democratic economy. While not all socialist economies are are necessarily Communist it does not mean that the gift system is undemocratic.

Exactly. This OP's post also contained an intentional logical fallacy used to troll this forum. This is not an uncomman tactic among trollkind, but invaluable to troll strategy.

[Rusty Shackleford]

All i can say is that id imagine that in any revolutionary situation, there are more important and pressing issues than "getting rid of money" id imagine a revolutionary government would manipulate money as best as possible to make due until the social and economic framework is set up for a successful eradication of money. now, really, in a socialist economy i can imagine as money being a bit pointless a good portion of a society which is experiencing a revolution could go into shock and become counterrevolutionary if something like the state being remodeled, money being eradicated, and totally alien(to most people) concepts that are being put into action all at once.

this is only about the use of money. not about exploitation.

exploitation is one of the pressing issues that must be dealt with first. money does not inherently equal exploitation. money is a medium for exploitation but it is not the cause of exploitation.

[ZeroNowhere]

Let me explain. The goal of this thread was to provoke those who strongly believe in a gift economy (which is many people in RevLeft), and get them into an argument with those who strongly believe in a cash economy (such as socialists). The inevitable debate would soon degenerate into a flame war, which means "successful troll is successful".
Is that your only justification for labeling it a troll thread, though? I mean, if a thread being likely to degenerate into a flame war between opposing leftists is a good criterion for its creator being a troll, everybody who creates a thread on Revleft is a troll.

[Rusty Shackleford]

...


Also, this is Learning. People usually state waht they agree and diasagree with and then ask for information on it.
not until a few months after being on this forum did i start seeing some sectarian lines.


Also, 500 posts, can i join CC now? :rolleyes:

[4N4RCHY]

Is that your only justification for labeling it a troll thread, though? I mean, if a thread being likely to degenerate into a flame war between opposing leftists is a good criterion for its creator being a troll, everybody who creates a thread on Revleft is a troll.

No, there are several more factors at play, here. Let's review the OP's post:

Money after a revolution? (the state is gone)
what of it?


im not a communist, i don't believe in a gift economy, i don't see it as efficiant as a money/sallary based economy (ie: anarcho-collectivism)
i think we should receive a sallary based on how long we work, how hard it was, training need and the dangers, basically Parecon

the different between collectivism/syndicalism and communism is really over the question of money as far as i know

i have accepted the idea that money should stay, but im not actually sure why. so i basically wanna "test my faith" and ask anarcho communists: why is a gift economy better? why should we all be allowed take goods as we wish when we don't necessarily deserve them? wat of luxery goods? (i know theres a thread on that atm, i'm still reading it)


im not a communist, i don't believe in a gift economy, i don't see it as efficiant as a money/sallary based economy
This is meant to aggrivate left Communists and Anarchists, as well as to hook the reader in, as to allow them further aggrivation.


i think we should receive a sallary based on how long we work, how hard it was, training need and the dangers,

This is not a leftist idea. He is implying that we should have a pseudo-fascist meritocracy according to a person's stregnth and ability to work. This kind of right-wing propaganda on a far-left forum is an example of contradiction - a cornerstone of trolling.


"test my faith"

Faith, by definition, is a belief not based on proof. Here, he implies that the far left does not have enough proof to be legitimate, and so he must have "faith" which he must test.


(i know theres a thread on that atm, i'm still reading it)

This is meant to annoy people, as some may feel they are wasting their time.

Also, the poor spelling and grammar thruout is very telling, even if English is not his first language.

[Twin City Lines]

Personally, I believe in the Marxist/Leninist concept of money: that it will be necessary in the first stage of socialism, as a means of "keeping score" re: how much work one has done for the community (or if exempt from working due to age, disability, etc., the amount of product one is allotted as a human right). However, as society transitions towards the second stage of communism, and becomes more prosperous, more things become "free" social services, and less things are sold, gradually reducing dependence on money and the need to "keep score". Money will wither away at about the same time the State does....

[AK]

Also, 500 posts, can i join CC now? :rolleyes:
What CC...

[4N4RCHY]

*sigh*
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/5067/coolface.jpg

[Rusty Shackleford]

What CC...
that was the joke.

[ContrarianLemming]

Exactly. This OP's post also contained an intentional logical fallacy used to troll this forum. This is not an uncomman tactic among trollkind, but invaluable to troll strategy.

this is absolute BS, i do not troll, ever, have some respect

[ContrarianLemming]

No, there are several more factors at play, here. Let's review the OP's post:


This is meant to aggrivate left Communists and Anarchists, as well as to hook the reader in, as to allow them further aggrivation.

This is not a leftist idea. He is implying that we should have a pseudo-fascist meritocracy according to a person's stregnth and ability to work. This kind of right-wing propaganda on a far-left forum is an example of contradiction - a cornerstone of trolling.

what the hell is wrong with you? fascist meritocracy? i don't get people like you, this is in the learning forum, i'm here to ask questions about why a monless socialist economy is better then one with money


Faith, by definition, is a belief not based on proof. Here, he implies that the far left does not have enough proof to be legitimate, and so he must have "faith" which he must test.

i think it's a pretty common phrase and i really doubt anyone took it as seriously as you did



Also, the poor spelling and grammar thruout is very telling, even if English is not his first language.

forgot to spellcheck, that i do apologise for.

i really quite glad everyone else answered my thread so well, really fascinating responses, lots to think about :)

[4N4RCHY]

this is absolute BS, i do not troll, ever, have some respect

You're such a liar lol

what the hell is wrong with you? fascist meritocracy? i don't get people like you, this is in the learning forum, i'm here to ask questions about why a monless socialist economy is better then one with money

No. You're promoting fascism and totalitarianism based solely on a person's ability to work (strength). This could also imply eugenics and selective breeding of people based on the strength standards of the meritocracy.

i think it's a pretty common phrase and i really doubt anyone took it as seriously as you did

Well, I'm the only one pointing out that you're a troll, so...

forgot to spellcheck, that i do apologise for.

http://membres.multimania.fr/fredrichung/forum/obvious%20troll.jpeg

i really quite glad everyone else fed me, the troll, lots to laugh about :)

Fixed :D

You are reading this

[CartCollector]

You do understand that calling someone a troll is, itself, feeding the troll? Just look at how this discussion has been derailed by your accusation.

[AK]

that was the joke.
it wasnt very funny

[AK]

You do understand that calling someone a troll is, itself, feeding the troll? Just look at how this discussion has been derailed by your accusation.
And YOU'RE feeding the discussion on call a trolling a troll; therefore being a troll. Get back to the topic will you?

[Wolf Larson]

Does anyone actually know of any concise, detailed Marxist works that say what a post-capitalist, moneyless society would look like? Or any works detailing how a gift economy would work? I think out of all my theoretical knowledge, I know least about what the end goal looks like. It seems very blurry; Marx only really spent his life time critiquing capitalism, rather than writing about revolutionary theory or what a post capitalist society would look like, as far as I know. It has always seemed the most radical out of all socialists/radical leftists demands. I can certainly understand the basic rationale behind it, but the deeper rationale is foggy for me, and probably with a fair few other leftists. Did Marx actually write, at all, about abolition of money? Why abolition of money? Why not just re-distribute money, equally? (I'm theoretically for abolition of money unless persuaded otherwise, I'm just trying to play devils advocate). Is it perhaps something to do with commodity fetishism, or the alienation of use-value? Thanks.

How can you have equality if you preserve the wage scale? Anarcho syndicalists are communists and most [modern] communists are anarchists or I should say we want the same ends- we just believe in different means to arriving at the same ends. Money as far as anarcho syndicalists are concerned manifests more so as labor notes or coupons to prove you've worked. Equal labor notes, as in, not based on the wage scale -everyone is given the same labor note as proof of work when picking up whatever you need/want from a supply chain or store. This is why anarchists such as Berkman, Parsons, Goldman, Meltzer and later even Bookchin adhered to the slogan 'from each according to his ability to each according to his need'. Money is a form of rationing by which one set of people get more than another. Meltzer said this many times in more than one way. He said money was a way to divide up scarce resources and that the monetary system should be abolished along with capitalism and the false scarcity it creates. The real trick is figuring out how to create abundance so there doesn't need to be any rationing as state socialist systems were plagued with. This is why Bookchin turned against the command economy in favor of democratic socialist municipalities- to avoid under/overproduction [and the state].

Money is also a form of rationing under scarcity. No scarcity no need for money [assuming capitalism doesn't exist]. Money is also a manifestation of hierarchy [wage scale]. Money under wage scale bad. Equal labor coupons good. Another aspect we need to consider is technology, and, also, the amount of jobs under capitalism which would be unnecessary in a socialist system. There would be a larger work force for less fields in so minimizing the work day, that, along with the application of technology would make most jobs an easy 3 to 4 hour a day gig at most. Anarchists/socialists/communists advocate everyone who is able to work show up and work [as you know]. An equal value coupon system would keep able [body/mind/age] people from being parasites. We also need to rid ourselves of the self centered reality capitalism has created. We're not advocating Ayn Rands motto "I swear by my life and my love of it I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine". Many people can't even conceive or see why a person would want to be a doctor if there were no hierarchical position to be attained. What you need to understand, with abundance, everyone would have equal access to everything so long as you work. Are all doctors motivated to go through med school because they will have more than other people or do they want to help people? If a person can't work due to health/psychological or other definitive reasons they would be cared for but in a post scarcity society everything would be equally attainable so long as you work. Wage scale bad. Proof of work good. The wage scale is one of the things we're fighting against. We want to minimize hierarchy as much as possible not perpetuate it :) Read Alexander Berkmans ABC's of anarchism. He paints a picture of what an anarchist society would look like but it's a tad outdated since we didn't have the same technology back then. Try Bookchin's post scarcity anarchism or ecology of freedom but he can be a tad....divisive. Especially his later work but you want to talk with Marxists so I'm the wrong guy. As far as I know we want the same things as Marxists. We just don't want to take over the state to defeat capitalism [simple version].